Haryana

StateCommission

A/758/2017

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

VIVEK DAWAR

20 Mar 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    758 of 2017

Date of Institution:  22.06.2017

Date of Decision:   20.03.2018

 

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Shamshabad Palwal, Tehsil and District Palwal, through its Branch Manager.

 

 

…..Appellant-Opposite Party No.3

 

Versus

 

1.      Rajesh Kumar son of late Babu Lal, aged about 50 years, resident of Rajiv Nagar, Shamshabad, Palwal, Tehsil and District Palwal.

 

……Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO-D/5, First Floor, above OBC Bank, Sector 1, IMT, Manesar, Gurgaon-122001.

 

 

……Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1

 

3.      The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Old GT Road, Ghasi Ram Petrol Pump, Palwal, Tehsil and District Palwal, through its Branch Manager.

 

……Respondent No.3-Opposite Party No.2

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

                  

   

 

Present:     Shri Vivek Dawar, counsel for the appellant.

                   Respondents ex parte vide order dated October 30^th, 2017.

                  

                            

O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          It was alleged by complainant that he was having an account with Opposite Party (in short ‘OP’) No.3 i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce and as per their advice he obtained Medi Claim Policy valid from 23.12.2013 to 22.12.2014. Thereafter he again approached OP No.3 to get the said policy renewed and Rs.4,726/- were deducted from his account and draft No.275922 dated 22.12.2015 was prepared. Thereafter he visited office of OP No.2 time and again to supply copy of Medi Claim Policy but to no result. On 20.07.2016 his wife met with an accident and Rs.3,50,000/- were spent on his treatment, medicines, transportation, special diet etc. He requested OPs to pay that amount, but, to no use. So, OPs be directed to refund that amount.

2.      OPs No.1 and 2 filed joint reply and OP No.3 filed separate reply to controvert his averments. It was alleged by OPs No.1 and 2 that policy expired on 28.12.2015, but, complainant did not make any premium for the revival of the same. Demand draft No.275922 sent by OP No.3 was received in their office on 27.01.2016 after 28 days of expiry. The said draft was sent back to OP No.3 with request to submit fresh proposal form from the insured so that fresh policy can be issued, but, no answer was received. When policy lapsed, they were not liable to pay any amount.

3.      OP No.3 simply alleged that averments raised by complainant were not correct because he did not visit it’s office time and again to get Medi Claim Policy etc. as alleged by him. Objections about accruing cause of action, maintainability of complaint, locus standi and suppression of true and material facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (in short ‘District Forum’) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 08.05.2017 and directed as under:

“…opposite party No.3 is directed to pay the treatment amount of the wife spent and paid by the complainant i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lakh) as per terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant alongwith Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which the opposite party will be further burdened to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and this compensation will be in addition to the above mentioned awarded amount”.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OP No.3 has preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant-OP No.3 vehemently argued that even if draft was prepared by it’s office, it is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant. In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Versus Basanti Devi and another, AIR 2000 (SC) 43 and Rajasthan High Court expressed in Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Versus Smt. Mukesh Devi and others, AIR 2002 Rajasthan 404.

8.      This argument is devoid of enforce. It may be mentioned in the very beginning that these judgments are pertaining to employer and employee and not to consumer and service provider. As per facts mentioned above it is clear that demand draft of Rs.4,726/- was prepared by OP No.3 on 22.12.2015 to get his policy renewed, but, did not send the same to the office of OPs No.1 and 2 till 27.01.2016. It is no where alleged by OP No.3 that it was not under obligation to send that draft to OPs No.1 and 2. It is no where explained that due to which reason draft could not be sent. When complainant alleged fault on the part of OP No.3 it was bounded duty to explain the same. Reply filed by OP No.3 is vague and indefinite. There is no ground to presume that there was no laxity on it’s part. So, learned District Forum rightly granted compensation as mentioned above. Findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

9.      The opposite party No.3-appellant is directed to fix the responsibility to the concerned official, who was responsible for delay in sending draft and loss suffered by department be recovered from the concerned employee as per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in  Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 and Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K.Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K.Gupta (Supra) as under:-

“When the Court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man.  It is the tax payer’s money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law.  It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund ‘immediately’ but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behavior by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.”

 

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent No.1 against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

  

 

Announced 20.03.2018

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member, Addl. Bench

(R.K. Bishnoi) Judicial Member, Addl. Bench

D.R.